9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant in respect of Rs. 8,42,385/- is rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the Tariff. A Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 was issued whereby the product manufactured by the appellant was exempted from payment of duty during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that they had already reversed the credit taken during the month of March 2000, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification and duty paid on 30-8-2000 by them requires to be refunded. The appellant also relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of the Revenue is that thereafter the appellant reversed the credit and subsequently paid the duty for the month of March 2000 and filed the refund claim in respect of the credit reversed by them and the refund was allowed. In these circumstances, the contention is that as the appellant availed the benefit of credit in respect of the inputs for the month of March 2000, therefore, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The refund of the credit on the inputs was allowed on 13-12-2000. The appellant had not challenged the refund claim order passed by the Assistant Commissioner granting refund of the credit. It means the appellant availed the credit for the month of March 2000 and also filed a refund claim in respect of the duty paid for that month by claiming the benefit of notification. The appellant relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were manufactured by the appellant under Chapter 48 were exempted from payment of duty and the appellant filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid for the month of March 2000. As in the March 2000, the appellant claimed the refund and credit, which was allowed, therefore, the refund of duty was rightly rejected. I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
